The Sidebar

Angela Tagtow (source)

Last week I blogged Ultimatum by US Dietary Guidelines chair Barbara Millen led to author/journalist Nina Teicholz being kicked off National Food Policy Conference panel.

E-mails I obtained via a FOIA request showed that Dr. Millen and USDA executive Angela Tagtow had tag-teamed to pressure conference organizer Thomas Gremillion to give Ms. Teicholz the boot.

source

Were the actions of Ms. Tagtow, Executive Director at the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, in compliance with USDA policy?

Per the letter below, today I asked USDA Inspector General Phyllis Fong to investigate, and I'll report the results in a future item.

Frank Hu MD PhD MPH (source)

On Monday I reported how Barbara Millen PhD, chair of the 2015 US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), and USDA executive Angela Tagtow tag-teamed an effort that resulted in author/journalist Nina Teicholz being kicked off a panel at a national food policy conference held last month.

Teicholz is a high-profile critic of the DGAC's methodology and findings (which have been widely criticized by medical experts and organizations).

It's not the first time Millen tried to muzzle Teicholz.

Last November, Millen signed a public letter to the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).

The letter demanded the retraction of a September 23 article by Teicholz which -- you guessed it -- criticized the methodology and findings of the DGAC.

Claiming Teicholz's article was "riddled with errors" -- a claim disputed in a recent Guardian article (see below) and elsewhere -- the letter was organized by the DC advocacy nonprofit, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

E-mails obtained via a public records request (embedded below in reverse chronology) show that another DGAC member, Dr. Frank Hu, a prominent professor/researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, asked a colleague to sign and circulate the retraction demand which resulted in a chain letter exchanged by European medical professionals and university faculty.

source

It started with an October 31, 2015 "Dear Colleague" e-mail in which CSPI executive Bonnie Liebman asked dozens of nutrition science professionals to sign the letter.

The next day, Hu e-mailed this to Prof. Miguel Miguel A. Martinez-Gonzalez at the University of Navarra, Spain:

Hi Miguel,

Would you like to sign the attached letter to retract the BMJ article? if so, please email Bonnie Liebman.

I would greatly appreciate if you can ask your colleagues in Spain and other European countries to sign the letter. I think it is extremely important to retract the terrible BMJ article for the sake of science and public health.

Many thanks

frank

Miguel A. Martinez-Gonzalez (source)

Later that day in this e-mail (slightly re-formatted for ease comprehension), Martinez-Gonzalez copied Hu on an e-mail he sent to about 20 colleagues, stating "Yes, of course, Frank."

...who obligingly added another link in the chain letter which she states was "instigated by Frank Hu."

From: Angeliki Papadaki [mailto:Angeliki.Papadaki@bristol.ac.uk]
Sent: 01 November 2015 12:48
To: Arne Astrup; Saris, Wim; Inge Huybrechts; manios@hua.gr; Inga Þórsdóttir; Andy Ness; susan.jebb@phc.ox.ac.uk; Agneta Yngve; Sibylle Kranz; lmoreno@unizar.es;
clare.collins@newcastle.edu.au; Antonis Kafatos; Jayne Woodside; Janet Cade; Dianne Ward
Subject: Fwd: Letter to BMJ re Dietary Guidelines--Please respond by Nov. 3

Dear colleagues,

Please see attached a suggestion for a BMJ retraction letter, instigated by Frank Hu at Harvard. We were asked to circulate the letter for signatures.

If you agree, please send an email to Bonnie Liebman (bliebman@cspinet.org) with a similar content to the below, in blue font, and circulate to your colleagues.

I have read the full version of the attached letter and I agree to include my sign on it.
I endorse its full content and the request to the BMJ to retract the journalist's article.

Kind regards,

Angeliki

Why did Hu encourage colleagues to demand a retraction of what he called "the terrible BMJ article for the sake of science and public health"?

We don't know because he hasn’t responded to multiple inquiries.

source

But here’s what Nina Teicholz e-mailed me today:
So was Dr. Hu making a good faith effort to address “an article riddled with errors” or was he attempting to censor a high-profile critic?

If he made himself available, along with that question, I'd ask him for a reaction comment to this section from Ian Leslie's lively and informative April 7 Guardian article about the nutrition science wars:

In September last year [Teicholz] wrote an article for the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), which makes the case for the inadequacy of the scientific advice that underpins the Dietary Guidelines. The response of the nutrition establishment was ferocious: 173 scientists – some of whom were on the advisory panel, and many of whose work had been critiqued in Teicholz’s book – signed a letter to the BMJ, demanding it retract the piece.

Publishing a rejoinder to an article is one thing; requesting its erasure is another, conventionally reserved for cases involving fraudulent data. As a consultant oncologist for the NHS, Santhanam Sundar, pointed out in a response to the letter on the BMJ website: “Scientific discussion helps to advance science. Calls for retraction, particularly from those in eminent positions, are unscientific and frankly disturbing.”

The letter lists “11 errors”, which on close reading turn out to range from the trivial to the entirely specious. I spoke to several of the scientists who signed the letter. They were happy to condemn the article in general terms, but when I asked them to name just one of the supposed errors in it, not one of them was able to. One admitted he had not read it. Another told me she had signed the letter because the BMJ should not have published an article that was not peer reviewed (it was peer reviewed). Meir Stampfer, a Harvard epidemiologist, asserted that Teicholz’s work is “riddled with errors”, while declining to discuss them with me.

This item has been slightly revised with an updated, but near-identical quote paragraph from Nina Teicholz.

source

On March 30 I reported Craven cave-in: How journalist/author Nina Teicholz was "disinvited" from the National Food Policy Conference: My item led with some paragraphs from Teicholz disinvited from food policy panel by Catherine Boudreau, Politico, March 25, 2016):
Records I recently obtained via a FOIA request to USDA (embedded below) reveal that Teicholz was kicked off the panel the morning after Millen, founder/president of a health screening company, sent this "URGENT" e-mail to Tagtow. (I've redacted her cell number. My bold red highlighting throughout.)

From: Millen, Barbara E [mail to:bmillen@bu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 5:33 PM
To: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Subject: URGENT: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference

Angie,

I just had a rather long conversation with Thomas [Gremillion] and expressed my great concern that he invited Nina Teicholz to the panel without informing us. I apologize for this email. I would have called but I’m sure it is well past your office hours. I will convey the main points of my conversation with Thomas and ask that you email him or call him directly.

Basically, I said that this development and specifically the inclusion of Ms. Teicholz changed the panel quite negatively and could result in quite antagonistic situation. I suggested he reconsider including her and indicated that I would hate to withdraw but would do so if necessary.

I also expressed that to Thomas that he and other in his organization should have been aware of Ms. Teicholz’ public views on the DGAC report and the DGAs and that I found it very surprising that they included her at all but certainly without discussing the possibility with the other panelists in advance of making the invitation.

I hope you agree. I imagine you do. Thomas would like to hear from you directly and hopes you can call or email him in the morning. He called me back within minutes of getting my email this evening.

If you wish to try to reach me, I am traveling but can be reached at 781-413-XXXX (my cell). I have intermittent service but I will call you back if I don’t answer.

Best, Barbara

Dr. Barbara E. Millen
bmillen@bu.edu

Angela Tagtow (source)

About a half-hour later, Tagtow apparently tried to carry Millen's message to Gremillion by phone rather than in writing.

On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:11 PM, Tagtow, Angela - CNPP <Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov> wrote:

Thomas, good evening and thank you for the update. I would like to visit with you tomorrow about USDA's concerns about this change of course for this panel presentation. Is there a good time for a phone call on Thursday? Let me know the best time and number to reach you and I'll give you a call. Best, Angie

On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org> wrote:

Hi Angie,

Thanks for contacting me. My morning is free tomorrow. Does 9:30 work for you? Best, Thomas

From: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP [mailto:Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 7:01 PM
To: Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org>
Subject: Re: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference

I'll be in transit at that time but could do 10:30am. Does that work on your end? Many thanks

Angie Tagtow | Executive Director | Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion | USDA | 703.305.7600 

By the next morning, apparently Gremillion had gotten his marching orders:

From: Thomas Gremillion [mail to: tgremillion@consumerfed.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:39 AM
To: Margo Wootan; bmillen@bu.edu; Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Cc: spitman@foodminds.com
Subject: RE: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference

Hello again,

In light of the feedback I have received from all of the panelists expressing concern about the change in the tenor of the discussion that would result from adding Ms. Teicholz, we are going to go with a different fourth panelist (or possibly only the three panelists).

I will let you know when/if we confirm someone.

Thank you all for reaching out to me with your feedback. Best, 

Thomas

On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org> wrote to Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov:

Just talked with Nina and gave her the news. Let me know if you would still like to talk at 10:30. Thanks, Thomas

But those marching orders apparently didn't come from Tagtow:

From: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:53 AM
To: Thomas Gremillion
Subject: Re: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference

Hi Thomas, thank you for addressing the concerns. No, we do not need to visit today. If you are looking for an industry panelist, Philippe Caradec from Danon [sic] has a compelling story on product reformulation. Best, Angie

Angie Tagtow, MS, RD, LD
Executive Director | Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
United States Department of Agriculture
3101 Park Center Drive, Suite 1034 | Alexandria, VA 22302
703.305.7600 | angela.tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov

A couple of weeks later, it got even more interesting

From: Nina Teicholz [mailto:teicholz@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 8:16 PM
To: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Subject: CFA Food Policy panel

Dear Angie,

I hope this finds you well.

I guess you know by now that a fan of mine started a petition to reinstate me to the food policy panel from which I was disinvited, and there are now nearly 3,000 signers.

Although you and I may have differing views about how nutrition science has been translated into policy, I'm sure we agree that good science (and thus, good policy) requires open debate. Given the continued rising tide of obesity and diabetes, shouldn't there a frank discussion about different ideas about possible causes and solutions?

And if you believe I've made mistakes in my analysis, then isn't this something to raise in a panel discussion? Thomas Gremillion told me that you, along with the two other panel members, refused to participate if I were included. If that is not true, please let me know.

The question is now how to repair a situation where it appears the government is shutting down discussion. I don't know if you would support inviting me back on the panel, but it seems that this would be the right thing to do. I look forward to hearing back from you.

All best regards,

Nina Teicholz

From: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP [mailto:Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:33 PM
To: Nina Teicholz <teicholz@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org>
Subject: RE: CFA Food Policy panel

Good Afternoon Nina,

Thank you for your email and for reaching out. As I hope you’ve experienced with us to date, CNPP is open to hearing all points of view and believes it’s an important part of our process, especially as it relates to nutrition science.

I want to be clear, no one here at CNPP, or within USDA, contacted Thomas to decline participation in the panel after he sent an update saying CFA had identified a fourth speaker – you, at the time. Please feel free to confirm that with Thomas, cc’d here.

That said, let me take this opportunity to correct misinformation you may have received. First, it was my understanding from Thomas’ initial invitation and updates along the way was that – in keeping with the discussion being about going from science to policy to implementation – my role was to address how USDA implements the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Second, it was my understanding that the fourth speaker was to be a member of the food industry with a perspective on product reformulations related to the Dietary Guidelines (see below for reference). To that point, I had not received any indication from Thomas that the focus of the session, or my role, had changed to include a debate about nutrition science.

Nina, I am simply an invited panelist. I would not make it my or CNPP’s place to supersede the decisions of CFA on session objectives or who the organization chooses for its panel speakers.

I hope this helps clarify any misunderstanding you may have on this panel session. Again, thank you for reaching out.

Best regards, Angie

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org> wrote:
Good afternoon Nina and Angie,

Angie thank you for including me in this discussion. Everything you have said below is accurate. Nina, I apologize again for my error in extending you an invitation to appear on this panel. As you can see on our website, we now have a full roster of speakers for this panel and we do not intend to change the panel makeup.

Best wishes, Thomas

From: Nina Teicholz [mailto:teicholz@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 12:13 AM
To: Thomas Gremillion
Cc: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Subject: Re: CFA Food Policy panel

Dear Thomas and Angie,

Thanks for your emails. I'm truly sorry to cause you any distress, but there is a strong sense, now shared by some 3500 people, including many scientists and MDs, who signed a petition on my behalf, that I should not have been disinvited from the panel. What prevents from adding another chair to the discussion?

Angie, I'm glad to hear that you had no objection to my participating. My inclusion would serve the purpose of addressing one of the intended topics of the panel, which was (from the text you sent below), "claims that food policy is not keeping up with the latest nutrition science." This point of view unfortunately does not appear to be represented on the now-revised panel. My inclusion would also arguably fill the consumer advocacy position, since CSPI is so close to the government on these particular issues.

The appearance of silencing debate on important issues cannot be in anyone's favor. A better solution would be to appear open to different points of view in the spirit of improving policy so that people might suffer less from nutrition-related diseases. And if "alternative" views on nutrition are wrong and misguided, what better opportunity than a discussion to quell any doubts? I am hopeful, still, that you might reconsider.

My thanks. All best, Nina

Via Tagtow's March 9 e-mail to Gremillion:

I would like to visit with you tomorrow about USDA's concerns about this change of course for this panel presentation.

Among other questions, on behalf of the USDA, did Tagtow help get Teicholz kicked off the panel?

Presumably the best person to answer that question would be USDA Inspector General Phyllis K. Fong.

Another question. Does Barbara Millen have any 'splainin' to do for her conduct?

If any readers get involved, I'd welcome being looped in. Click here for my contact info.

Here's the nine-page pdf of all the e-mails USDA provided in response to my FOIA request, formatted to start with page four when Teicholz was invited. For clarity, I did some very minor re-formatting and arranged them chronologically. (USDA provided some e-mails without complete headers -- I have a follow-up request in for those. If/when I receive, I'll update this item and the pdf.)




This has been slightly revised. Near the top of the item I added that I obtained the e-mails via a FOIA request to USDA.

Nina Teicholz

Via Teicholz disinvited from food policy panel by Catherine Boudreau, Politico, March 25, 2016

...Nina Teicholz, an author who has publicly criticized the science behind the government's low-fat dietary advice, was recently bumped from a nutrition science panel after being confirmed by the National Food Policy Conference. The panel instead will include Maureen Storey, president and CEO of the Alliance for Potato Research and Education.

...Teicholz said she was disinvited after other panelists said they wouldn’t participate with her. Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, which is organizing the conference, confirmed he’d hoped to have Teicholz on the panel “but it didn't work out...”

...Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, will speak on the panel, along with Barbara Millen, the former chairwoman of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and Angie Tagtow, executive director of the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Wootan said that “concerns were raised about Teicholz's credibility, given the significant inaccuracies in her work.” Wootan pointed to a list of 180 scientists who urged the British Medical Journal to retract a feature article by Teicholz last year.

Thomas Gremillion (source)

What caused Gremillion to rudely and unceremoniously kick a prominent journalist/author off the panel?

According to Teicholz, she received a March 9, 2016 e-mail from Gremillion inviting her to be a member of the “Turning Nutrition Science into Policy,” scheduled for April 6.

An hour later Teicholz accepted and everything was in place for a lively debate.

And isn't that a cornerstone of the scientific method?

A couple hours later, that prospect headed south.  

Margo Wooten (source) Barbara Millen PhD (source) Angela Tagtow (source)

From: Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org>
Date: Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:20 PM
Subject: RE: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference
To: mwootan@cspinet.org, bmillen@bu.edu, Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov
Cc: teicholz@gmail.com

Hi again Margo, Barbara, and Angie,

I apologize for inundating your inboxes this week but I wanted to let you know that we have confirmed Nina Teicholz (cc’ed) as our fourth panelist. Nina is an investigative journalist and author of The Big, Fat Surprise.

You should hear soon from your moderator Sue Pitman. In the meantime, do not hesitate to contact me with questions.

Thanks,

Thomas

It's unclear how "Thomas, Margo, Barbara, and Angie" passed the rest of that afternoon, but the next morning Gremillion gave Teicholz the axe.

On March 28 I e-mailed these questions to Gremillion and copied reporter Catherine Boudreau at Politico:

After you sent the March 9 e-mail, were you contacted by Ms. Wootan, Dr. Millen, Ms. Tagtow, or anyone else who expressed displeasure with Ms. Teicholz's presence on the panel?

How did you choose Dr. Storey to replace Ms. Teicholz and on what date did you invite her?

When you invited Dr. Storey, was she aware that she was replacing Ms. Teicholz?

Here's his prompt albeit skimpy reply:

From: Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org>
To: "Peter M. Heimlich" <peter.heimlich@gmail.com>
CC: "cboudreau@politico.com" <cboudreau@politico.com>
Subject: RE: blogger inquiry
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:54:26 +0000

Hi Peter,

I don’t have any further comment on Nina Teicholz. I am very pleased with the program that we have put together for the National Food Policy Conference this year and I think our audience will be too.

Best,

Thomas

In this e-mail she sent me (including the links), Teicholz was less taciturn:

It's startling to me that well-respected DC organizations like CSPI would take the stand that they simply can't tolerate debate and discussion. This behavior truly begs the question: what is it they have to fear? If the science that CSPI has been promoting for four decades can hold up to scrutiny, then they should welcome the chance to make that case. The reality is that in recent decades, there's been a tremendous re-evaluation of what causes nutrition-related diseases: if not dietary fat, as we've thought for so long, then what? But the political-industrial alliances in DC don't want this science to be heard. 

It's not just me, I know, because after I was disinvited, I proposed a Harvard MD and a former Dietary Guidelines Committee member to take my place, but they weren't invited, either. Also, some 4150 people signed a petition in just a week to get me reinstated. They know that the thinking has changed and that the science needs a full, open debate (read their comments--they are passionately in favor of science and debate).

CSPI has clearly been trying to shut down that discussion, not only by having me disinvited, but also by organizing a letter to retract a piece I wrote in The BMJ that was critical of the science behind the Dietary Guidelines. That piece has not been retracted. My work stands, and I believe it's beneath basic standards of intelligent debate to disinvite someone because their views pose uncomfortable challenges to established views.

April 6, 2016: This is a revised, expanded version of an item I posted on March 30, 2016 and took down a few hours later due to an unexpected editorial snafu. The substantive information is identical plus the updated version includes the quotes from Teicholz.